Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Barn Busting, Remington Rand Style

In 1990 I was issued an M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol that had been manufactured by Remington Rand during WWII.  Though a stout and reliable firearm, my “Colt” had one limitation. 

remington-rand45.jpg

Its accuracy. 

To put it mildly, I was surprised the bullets ever hit the ground.  At 25m I had a shot group of around 2 feet. 

Now, I was (and still am) by no means an expert on firearms, and stories abound regarding the inaccuracy issues of the M1911A1, but the one thing I did know was the .45 was, and still is, used extensively in pistol competitions, so I knew the weapon design was not the issue, nor was the ammunition, but I was at a loss as to why I literally couldn’t hit the target right in front of me.

This went on for a year or so until we got a new Platoon Leader in our company who also happened to be something of a shade-tree gunsmith and a Colt collector.  What he said was, no the weapons aren’t bad, and the ammunition, while not match grade, wasn’t the cause, but rather, the Army’s level of “tolerance” in key components.  Bottom line, all my troubles centered on the barrel and barrel bushing.  Upon further inspection it was noted that when fully seated (slide all the way forward) my barrel was still capable of movement, a LOT of movement, as was explained to me, which obviously was having an effect on my accuracy.  Unfortunately, as the LT explained, that “slop” was still within Army tolerance, so technically there was nothing to be done.

Well, the next day what should appear but a Brownell’s catalogue, listing all the parts I would need to ‘fix” my .45.  I purchased a barrel, barrel bushing, barrel link and pin (as well as a plastic deadfall hammer and some lapping compound to fit the barrel and bushing to the slide) and then spent the next field problem hammering the slide back and forth the fit them.

The results, however, were immediate and satisfying.  My shot groups had collapsed to about 5” (good I thought, considering I was still shooting a stock slide and receiver.) The Lt., on the other hand, was shooting VERY good groups, but then he’d gone the extra step to get a complete fitted slide assembly, to include adjustable rear sight; after qualifying he’d just remove his slide, re-attach the Army issue one, and turn the .45 back into the arms room (which would explain why folk who checked his .45 out to qualify with didn’t do so well.)

Anyway, that small investment on my part not only dispelled all those accuracy issues surrounding the .45, but also improved the quality of my shooting.

-- Eric Daniel

Comments

I WORK FOR A LOCAL SHERIFF OFFICE AND WE CAME ACROSS A DUPLICATE SERIAL NUMBER REM RAND 45 AND A COLT THAT SUPPOSEDLY THE ORGINAL WAS DESTROYED BUT WE HAVE THE WEAPON. AS FAR AS THE MILITARY IS CONCERNED, IT'S DESTROYED BY SHOWED UP AGAIN 20YEARS AFTER IT WAS DESTROYED. MAN, TALK ABOUT DURABILITY!!!!!!

Posted by: RANDY at September 29, 2008 11:11 AM


I have a US Army Remington Rand built in 1943 and out shot every modern 45 acp in the match. You can bet that my life can depend on this fine weapon. But an opinion is like an asshole everyone has one. Some assholes have more negitive opinions. AS we say in war have a nice day!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Combat vet at August 25, 2008 08:23 AM


Hi, couldnt let the .45 get raped like this.

How many of you shoot 100 rounds a week?

If you are a professional, and don't practice with your rifle and pistol, then please, you've got nothing to complain about.

A gun only shoots as well as the operator.
Does a Glock "lock up" better than a 1911?
Stock, the glock wins every time.
The John Browning design is over 100 years old. It has saved MANY an American life.

Sorry guys, practice, shoot, move your a$$, n plant n shoot some more, get good at it, you'd be amazed at how much "better the gun shoots."

Im sure I'll get lotsa hugs, but tough, the truth is the truth. You can't BUY accuracy, its EARNED

D.Woroner

Posted by: David Woroner at October 12, 2007 05:11 PM


I had always heard that the old 1911 were purposefully "sloppy" for practical reasons of interchangeability and durability similar to the AK-47

Posted by: JMD at October 11, 2007 08:15 AM


With the bounty of aftermarket parts available, there is no reason to carry an inaccurate or unreliable 1911. Good commercial magazines are other items that are much better than GI issue. If you're packing a .45, it might make sense to pony up for a couple.

Posted by: dave at October 10, 2007 06:07 PM


I once served on National Guard Infantry Battalion pistol team. We competed with 1911a1, we had great success with rack weapons. We came in third one year, second the next and finally first the third year.This was both New York State matches and also 1st Army matches The 1911a1 is a good weapon with alot of unfounded BS attached to it. It's about training, training, training. There were teams that were just unbelievable, like the team from Vermont NG. I think the weapon could be updated more for today's needs but the basic design can't be beat, it's like a hammer, just a great tool.

Posted by: tony at October 10, 2007 02:53 PM


My license plate: "M1911 45"

It's my favorite firearm. Period. We even just got my girlfriend a .22 1911 from Kimber.

I get some great thumbs up for the license plate on occasion.

Posted by: chs at October 10, 2007 01:21 PM


A little more grist for the mill...

owilleke's comment about QC is spot on, but maintainability is also an issue. My Dad qual'd on a 1911 in '57 or '58 that shot about a foot to the right at 25 yards. After a few misses he called his instructor over, and the instructor figured out what was happening. His solution? Hold a foot to the left.

Decades later I watched an old NCO trying to build up tight 1911s out of spare parts at Fort Dix. A Ranger buddy at the time, a Blue Light vet, said they built out their own .45s with the best spares they could beg, borrow or steal. IIRC, custom barrels and bushings/counterweights were big at the time.

People forget that's how the .45 inventory used to be managed -- towards the end, weapons were cannibalized for parts that still worked, or had tolerances tight (or loose) enough to function with others. So many manufacturers had made so many parts for years (back in the day, pre-CAM) that the key to maintaining them was the NCO (in Eric's story, the LT) in the woodpile.

Let's hope they factor that into the next issue pistol, give Jo Snuffy something or their senior NCO something he or she can fix without a requisition form.

After that, I dunno -- I wouldn't get down on the 9mm too much. At the time, it seemed like a good idea. The problems with .45 inventory had led to a proliferation of .38s (because people could still hit with them). There was NATO standardization (and by some accounts, buying bases in Italy). Some SOF forces were already moving towards 9mm pistols and SMGs. More to the point, .45 hardball couldn't penetrate Warsaw Pact helmets and flak vests, and (at the time) 9mm NATO could. Combine that with 1911s shooting 2 foot groups at 25 yards, and Ivan showing the ability to air drop entire divisions, and you can understand why someone thought the 9mm (and M9) made sense for REMFs. The M9 doesn't have a barrel bushing, or a link pin, or locking lugs; it shoots flat, and straight, and functions OK, IF you don't wear out the magazines. Which goes back to...a maintainability issue.

What's next? F**k if I know. .45 ACP FMJ ball was mil spec'd in 1911; it'll be 2011 soon. I can see .45 ACP ball being better than 9mm NATO FMJ ball for unarmored terrorists for the GWOT, but what's next? Do we want to go back to the future, or use a more modern cartridge, like .40, 10mm, or 9X23 (as in the 5.56 NATO case cut down, not as in the Winchester variety)? I don't think any of them, or for that matter, any known pistol cartridge, will work against ceramic armor plates (unless we figure out new projectiles with very novel properties).

Don't know. I like 1911s; I own one. But I'm not sure .45s of any stripe are the next step in pistols, much less PDWs.

Like I said, more grist for the mill. Nice article, Eric.

Posted by: demophilus at October 10, 2007 12:17 AM


My sentiments are split between matching Takeo's and thinking that one should leave well enough alone. I've never been satisfied with the M9, partly because of the wimpy ammunition and partly because I'm a poor shot with it. I agree with the multitude who think discarding the .45 for 9mm was a mistake. I'm still waiting for the DoD to get with the program on coming up with a replacement.

Posted by: TrustButVerify at October 9, 2007 06:16 PM


Let's not discount the fact that the 1911 in GI guise is a very old design, there are modern designs for .45s that are vastly cheaper to produce, have far fewer parts and are capable of equal or better than a tuned GI-spec 1911.

my Springfield XD in .45ACP (made in Croatia) holds 10 rounds, is famously durable and reliable for HALF the price of even a lower-end accurized 1911. I love the 1911s for their triggers and good ergonomics but it's time we started looking at other guns for a replacement.

Posted by: Takeo at October 9, 2007 05:45 PM


That LT is a smart one. I wish wonder is the AF will let me do that?

Posted by: 22lr at October 9, 2007 05:17 PM


The article makes an excellent point about quality control. So much of the procurement debates is about design and quantity. And, of course, the prototypes that the brass and Pentagon guys get to consider in the early stages of the process are of excellent quality.

But, a second rate design with superior workmanship often outrates the best design with shoddy construction.

Posted by: ohwilleke at October 9, 2007 03:15 PM


My first 45 was a 1918 Colt mfg that my mother bought for me in 1968 when I was 14. My oldest son now owns it. It shot better than the 5 foot group, but with a few mods it has greatly improved. Full length guide rod with 18 1/2 lb recoil spring, aluminum match trigger, new 19 lb mainspring, stainless firing pin and new fp spring. The rest is still stock.
I built my current 1911 out of a GI slide and Essex frame. All internal parts are stainless and I hand-fitted the barrel bushing and link pin. Also lowered the ejection port and hand fitted the slide to frame & tuned the ejector. For liability purposes a gunsmith did the trigger job. It out-shoots my SIG 220 all day long.

Posted by: ccso8462 at October 9, 2007 02:29 PM


Good Morning Folks,

Same problem, same solution, different war. I was issued a Rand M-1911 in 1966 before shipment to Vietnam. When I went to the range at Ft. Meade to qualify I couldn't hit a 25meter target although I was quite use to the weapon. The solution was on my pre deployment leave was a visit to a war surplus store where I aquired some replacement barrels and other parts. Problem solved.

I also got enought barrels and parts for the rest the platoon. Back then new barrels Gov't contract issue could be bought in there sealed packages for about $.75 each. Total bill was less the $20.00.

It turns out that the last Gov't. contract for M-1911's was in 1942 and those weapons saw service in WWII and Korea by the time of Vietnam. Now you can add a couple more wars.

ALLONS,
Byron

Posted by: Byron Skinner at October 9, 2007 01:31 PM


Only the best for our fighting men in uniform.

Pisses me off that we'll spend billions on high tech weapons systems and send soldiers off to battle with inaccurate firearms that could be improved with a few dollars worth of parts.*

I understand that these training weapons were not necessarily the ones that would be carried into combat, but you can't really learn how to shoot well if your training weapon is inaccurate.

Hopefully this anecdote no longer represents military thinking.

*(Don't get me wrong, I'm all for battlefield superiority through high tech weapons systems, just not at the expense of bread-and-butter systems for the guys on the ground. Especially considering how relatively cheap those bread-and-butter systems are in comparison.)

Posted by: Chuck at October 9, 2007 01:04 PM


i'm not really savvy on military accounting, but are field modifications such as the aftermarket parts noted above able to be "expensed" or at least tax-deductable? knowing there are many such manufacturing tolerance problems even within stringent MILSPEC requirements, i would hope that the soldiers in the field should be able to get some reimbursement for the personalization in their kit that makes them more effective and surviveable.

Posted by: C at October 9, 2007 12:56 PM


The 1911 is a fine piece to carry. I cant afford one right now, but it is very high on my list of stuff to get.

Posted by: 22lr at October 9, 2007 12:41 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.